My 75-300 USM is making me mad!!

[MrKickalot]

Just got my Rebel Digital a little over 2 weeks ago!! I love it. I have taken some nice pictures with it (nothing as good as I would like to be taking) with the 18-55. I actually haven't completely messed up any pictures with that lens. The problem I am having is with my 75-300. I have only taken good pictures with it one time on the prettiest day in the last 2 weeks. It seems like it is the pickiest lens in the world. I tried taking pictures tonight at sunset in my back yard of some birds. The camera was on a tripod and still took fuzzy pictures. Seems like I can never get a shutter speed over about 1/100th or so even on ISO 800. There are a few clean pictures but most stink. Has anyone had problems with this lens?

[boobops]

The 75-300 is Canon's entry into the "how crap can we make a lens contest".

It has more CA than can possibly be acceptable and wags like puppy dog's tale when fully extended - plus has no tripod mount.

Avoid this lens.

[MrKickalot]

Thanks but it's too late!! Bought it with my Rebel TI about 6 months ago. Luckily it was cheap!! Will it be any better if I stay in the 200 range?

[boobops]

I don't think that the lens is of any use at all. Best advice would be to offload it and look elsewhere

IMO the sigma 70-200 and the 1.4x convertor will give vastly better images. If you can afford it the Canon 70-200 2.8L may be better - but I have compared both and prefer the Sigma - but what do I know try them yourself and pick your preference.

[RichardtheSane]

Have you considered that it may not be the lens?
Sure, it isn't the best lens that canon do, but it is sharper and better built that the standard 75-300 and is capable of producing good results.

Is the IS turned on while you have it on the tripod?
What shooting mode/aperture are you in?

It is worth checking the way you are shooting and wether there is anything that could be improved before blaming the equipment.

[ron chappel]

By coincidence i just did a test with that lens and must say this particular one is actually allmost OK.I have had lousy results in the past with another example and generally don't think much of it at all.The canon 100-300 may be better but the harsh facts are that there are simply NO cheap decent options in x-300mm zooms.

[jjguest]

you should have bought sigma 70-300 apo whichis much better and cheaper
http://www.pbase.com/image/17717967.jpg

[Dukeofurl]

Are you talking about the IS version?

[ilya]

While not excluding the possibility of there being some kind of a defect with YOUR lens, I have to say that besides being clanky and creepy, my 75-300is is a great lens for the money. It works as intended. You may want to recheck everything that you do.

BTW, jjguest's example just proves that its not the glass. Please take this constructively, but that shot has motion blur, is not very sharp, and the composition leaves a lot to be desired, thus not showcasing the true potential of that particular Sigma.

Your 75-300 should be able to do this without any problems.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1584486&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[sjprg]

Here is another 75-300 non IS all handheld

http://www.pbase.com/image/20333482
http://www.pbase.com/image/21020722
http://www.pbase.com/image/21594328

Paul

[sjprg]

boobops: your way out of line. The 75-300 is not a bad lens at all. Maybe not the best but definitly very useable.
When you consider that the next thing up in the range at a decent price is the Sigma 50-500 at allmost three times the price.
Kicksalot: you might want to send your camera and all your lenses to Canon for adjustment. If nothing else just peace of mind.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I used the 75-300 as my first lens and was SO dissapointed in my 10D I almost sold it completly (it was my only lens), when I got my new lenses I saw what was possible and loved it ever since.

The 75-300 is as a starters lens wonderful but don't expect anything above the 200 mm setting.

Greetings,
Frank

[jjguest]

i compleetly agree with ilya
. My shot is on a moving target.
And i accept some defaults.
http://www.pbase.com/image/17293660.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/18028124.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jjguest

[iesrick]

http://rickw.fotopic.net/photo.php?id=1610147


http://rickw.fotopic.net/photo.php?id=1610148

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

Try a good quality lens for example the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and you will be blown away.

For me the 70-300 had a cartoonisch color rendition and a somewhat smeared image, even with 1/4000 shuttertimes it was just not what I expected from a canon lens, however the Sigma is over here 3x as expensive.

You get what you pay for, in that marksegment I would look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings.

Understand me correct, I made some wonderful shots with the 75-300 but on the 10 shots only 2 came out very good, with my Sigma out of 100 shots 95 come out perfect. (except for human failures).

Greetings,
Frank

[UK_Terry]

boobops wrote:
The 75-300 is Canon's entry into the "how crap can we make a lens contest".

It has more CA than can possibly be acceptable and wags like puppy dog's tale when fully extended - plus has no tripod mount.

Avoid this lens.


Hey Hey Hey....i have the standard Canon 75 - 300..nothing crap about mine..photo below taken with it. you get good and bad examples in all lenses, i don't think you can just write it off as a bad lense.
http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/Blyskawica/img_0223_std.jpg

[ron chappel]

Mmm some extremely good and some obviously soft examples posted by various people.The better ones i'm big time impressed with!
I remember now--someone posted examples recently(2 weeks ago?) from the sigma apo macro 75-300.They were very impressive for a cheapie (actually that sigma model costs more than the canon 75-300).I'll see if i can find a link

[jjguest]

i think that sigma 70-300 apo is a good lens for a good price. it is sure that l lenses are better but you have to spend more money
http://www.pbase.com/image/21812749.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest

[jjguest]

i think that sigma 70-300 apo is a good lens for a good price. it is sure that l lenses are better but you have to spend more money
http://www.pbase.com/image/21812749.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest

[DonCoon]

J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
Hi,

Try a good quality lens for example the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and you will be blown away.

For me the 70-300 had a cartoonisch color rendition and a somewhat smeared image, even with 1/4000 shuttertimes it was just not what I expected from a canon lens, however the Sigma is over here 3x as expensive.

You get what you pay for, in that marksegment I would look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings.

Understand me correct, I made some wonderful shots with the 75-300 but on the 10 shots only 2 came out very good, with my Sigma out of 100 shots 95 come out perfect. (except for human failures).

Greetings,
Frank

So, how about posting some samples from your Sigma lenses so we can se if we're blown away? I'd like to compare them with the 75-300s posted here.

[MiG82]

So, how much sharpening are people using to make their respective lenses look better?
Judging lens sharpness on less than 100% magnification after an unknown amount of sharpening is a waste of time and bandwidth.

With the photos here, you are approximately shoving 3x3 or 4x4 pixels into 1. You'd have to have a pretty crap lens for it not to look good after that.

[rshavis]

Sigma 70-300
http://www.pbase.com/rshavis/sigma_70-300_non_apo

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

http://www.hometheater.nl/doorhof/Dieren/apen/apen1.jpg

http://www.hometheater.nl/doorhof/Dieren/dierenalgeem13.jpg

http://www.hometheater.nl/doorhof/Dieren/dierenalgeem5.jpg

VERY HEAVY compressed and resized for webuse.
If you want original JPEG's or RAW's please mail me I would be happy to supply them.

Also look at www.doorhof.nl for some more.
The Sigma 70-210F2.8 APO has been my primairy shooting lens for some time.

Greetings,
Frank

[DonCoon]

LOVE the subject matter, especially the first and last. The first is humorus and I wouldn't mess with the last :)

It's really impossible to judge sharpness though due to the size and compression. For examples: the fur in the top picture looks oversharpened on my monitor and the features on that authoratative eagle appear out of focus. I'd love to see full size crops.

Good work though! Hope they were in a zoo under lock and key!

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

I know, but they asked me for proof :D.

The real shots are really amazing, although the eagle is shot from VERY close with a f2.8 so the DOF is very shallow sorry for that, but it all went too quick.

The best comment I can give is that with the 75-300 from Canon I got picture who appeared very nice but when looking at full size you could see alot of smearing in the pixels, just like the resolution was not high enough, the 70-210f2.8 Sigma is razor sharp in that contest, when I look at pictures from my Sigma 135-400 I can also see SOME smearing in the 400 setting but not as much as with the Canon.

From the lensen I own the 2 favourites are my 70-210f2.8 and the Tamron 90mm Macro 1:1 those are both incredible sharp and detailed.

But hey let's be reasonable, the 75-300 canon is very very cheap and you pay a bit for the Canon brand, so why is it so strange the lens is not perfect ???

Greetings,
Frank